Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Todd]

Definition of "pure bullshit:" Readily available public information you haven't bothered to keep track of. You must be aware of the campaign finance violations for which Michael Cohen has plead guilty, right? And you heard the tape in which Trump authorized these violations right? So I will assume you don't need links for any of that. There is no dispute that indictments can be written under seal and then put into effect later. It's done all the time for various reasons. In the Trump campaign finance case, a sealed indictment would serve several purposes: Such an indictment does not interfere with or distract from the president's ability to execute the duties of his office, thereby nullifying the basis for Justice Department guidelines discouraging indictment of a sitting president. More important, a sealed indictment ensures that should Mueller be fired, the indictment would not disappear, but would survive to be taken up by the Justice Department. This alone makes it a no-brainer for the Mueller investigation. Additionally, a sealed indictment solves potential statute of limitations issues should Trump remain in office for two terms (saints forefend!), since the "timer" starts only when such indictments are unsealed. 

I'll get to the banking issues later, although there is a whole series of articles on this in the Guardian and many other sources if you are actually interested in being informed on these issues.

I love the authoritativeness on legal matters.  Good stuff.  Please do get to the banking issues.

[71 dB]

Nope, I didn't Google it, it is something I know from reading physically published material.  I read it every year.  I certainly do not remember every country, and I do not remember specific numbers, but rather general figures and trends. 

This may come as a shock to you but Finns don't memorize GDPs of 50 states of the US. Some may if they are professors etc. and study the US economics, but that's it. Why do you need to know the GDP of Finland? I have never needed the GDP of Oregon for anything in my life until now that you made the comparison and I wanted to comment on it.

Not really.  You use other statistical measures.  They do not really describe quality of life.

And yet Finland is rated the happiest country.  Of course, this comes from the UN, the same body that advocates voluntary insect eating and has countries like China and Saudi Arabia on its "human rights" council, so accolades may not really be worth much.

So, what DOES describe quality of life?

"The World Happiness Report is an annual publication of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. It contains articles, and rankings of national happiness based on respondent ratings of their own lives, which the report also correlates with various life factors.

As of March 2018, Finland was ranked the happiest country in the world." -Wikipedia

So, are you suggesting that how people describe their own happiness is a bad indicator of their happiness?

[71 dB]

This forum definitely has its good points.

Certainly, such as "Todd takes a hiatus." 

[Todd]

This may come as a shock to you but Finns don't memorize GDPs of 50 states of the US. Some may if they are professors etc. and study the US economics, but that's it. Why do you need to know the GDP of Finland? I have never needed the GDP of Oregon for anything in my life until now that you made the comparison and I wanted to comment on it.

I read up on economic matters because they interest me.  That's it.

So, what DOES describe quality of life?

That is a topic that moves beyond the bounds of academic or UN sanctioned studies and reports and relies extensively on non-quantifiable, non-reportable subjective factors.  If you are satisfied with the UN ranking of Finland and take as much pride in it as you very obviously do, more power to you. 

"The World Happiness Report is an annual publication of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. It contains articles, and rankings of national happiness based on respondent ratings of their own lives, which the report also correlates with various life factors.

As of March 2018, Finland was ranked the happiest country in the world." -Wikipedia

Nothing on earth suggests truth more than a UN report as written about on Wikipedia.

Certainly, such as "Todd takes a hiatus." 

I will again at some point, but probably not in the next few weeks.

[arpeggio]

The Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association (APSA) has just ranked Trump the worst president in the history of the United States: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/experts-rank-the-best-us-presidents-of-all-time/ss-BBTnEv1?ocid=spartandhp.

I already know that the Trumpsters are going to scream that this is a liberal group.  I checked into this organization and it includes scholars from all of the major universities.  This liberal group ranked the following Republicans in the top ten: Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.  The weakest Democratic presidents were James Buchanan (my personal favorite bad president), Franklin Pierce and Jimmy Carter.  Trumpsters will have a fit when they see how they rank Obama.  I really look forward to their tantrums.

[71 dB]

I read up on economic matters because they interest me.  That's it.

Rather than memorazing numbers I am more interested in understanding how economics work. Why does more people in Oregan live under poverty line than in Finland despite of higher GDP per capita? One explanation is Finland works more as a democracy while Oregon is more oligarchic and is more rigged for the rich.

That is a topic that moves beyond the bounds of academic or UN sanctioned studies and reports and relies extensively on non-quantifiable, non-reportable subjective factors.  If you are satisfied with the UN ranking of Finland and take as much pride in it as you very obviously do, more power to you.

Well, it's nice to be ranked that high. Nordic countries do a lot of things right and tend to rank high. That's why the lefties in the US want the Nordic social democracy copied to the US society.

Nothing on earth suggests truth more than a UN report as written about on Wikipedia.

I don't subscribe to the most reliable news source in the World, your local newspaper so I'm brainwashed by Wikipedia UN, TYT, Kyle Kulinski and other suspicious sources. A bit better than Fox News, Breitbart and Alex Jones anyway I believe...

[JBS]

Democrats already tried a 'moderate' candidate, Hillary Clinton, and FAILED in an epic manner. Under Obama the democrats lost over 1000 seats!Americans are sick of the corruption and politicians only serving their donors. In order to win Trump in 2020 the Democrats need a real progressive as their candidate. Someone who fights for the people: Medicare for all, free collage, ending the wars and drug war, living wage, paid vacation by law, gun laws etc. That the stuff that helps the 99 % of the population that has been ignored for decades.

Please remember that in terms of US politics you are a hardcore leftist, and what you see as as sane and popular policies are by and large not thought of that way by most American voters. 
I don't understand why you consisently err about why Hillary failed to get elected. It was not her policies.  It was her perpetual arrogance, her apparent corruption and her blatant disregard of avoiding the appearance of corruption [oddly, all traits that she actually shares with Trump] that turned people off.  Plus she was a lousy candidate on the campaign trail.

[drogulus]

Please remember that in terms of US politics you are a hardcore leftist, and what you see as as sane and popular policies are by and large not thought of that way by most American voters. 
I don't understand why you consisently err about why Hillary failed to get elected. It was not her policies.  It was her perpetual arrogance, her apparent corruption and her blatant disregard of avoiding the appearance of corruption [oddly, all traits that she actually shares with Trump] that turned people off.  Plus she was a lousy candidate on the campaign trail.

     The policies are popular, but people would prefer that angels and not hardcore leftists delivered them. But then I find the idea of hardcore left slippery. It seems to be applied to any effort to raise wages or cut taxes on job holders, or attack climate change with serious measures designed to work. The excuse is that this would involve positive "intervention" in the governments own responsibilities. After thousand of years of public investment in future growth an American ideology says it was all a mistake. We should give it all back, tax back the savings so everyone will have more money to...save.

    I think we should do what works and invest where we see the need, no omniscience required. We never needed to know the future to create it before, we don't need to now.

[71 dB]

Please remember that in terms of US politics you are a hardcore leftist, and what you see as as sane and popular policies are by and large not thought of that way by most American voters. 
I don't understand why you consisently err about why Hillary failed to get elected. It was not her policies.  It was her perpetual arrogance, her apparent corruption and her blatant disregard of avoiding the appearance of corruption [oddly, all traits that she actually shares with Trump] that turned people off.  Plus she was a lousy candidate on the campaign trail.

Yes, I know you see me a hardcore leftist through the Overton window that is so right. What policies are popular among American? Medical for all polls at 70 % for example despite the smearing against it in corporate media. What if the media talked about Medicare for all without smearing? What if there wasn't Ben "medicare for all would make my wife a slave" Shapiros regurgating Koch brothers talking points? Medicare for all would probably poll over 90 % How about common sense gun regulation? Polls over 90 % and is popular even among NRA members! Only the leaders of NRA are against gun regulation because they take money from gun manufacturers and buy politicians. How about rise on minimum wage? Higher taxes on the wealthy? Ending the wars? Legalizing marihuana? All of these are popular among Americans. This is actually one of the big surprises for me when I started to follow American politics 2 years ago to understand why Trump won. Americans are actually quite left-leaning and often just label themselves right-wing incorrectly. The other surprise for me was how corrupted the Democrats are! Just wow! I knew the Republicans are very bad, but that (corporate) Democrats are almost as bad, only better on social issues.

Hillary Clinton is massively corrupted and have financial ties that make her very unreliable in her promises. She used to be for Medicare for all back in her husbands presidency, but today? Politicians use weasel words such as "access to doctor". Instead of emphasising clear progressive agendas, she used cliches and platitudes such as "stronger together." It was both her weak political message and her arrogance ("give me the presidency already!") that allowed Trump win. She wasn't a populist while her opponent was and that's why she lost in the era of political populism.

[JBS]

Yes, I know you see me a hardcore leftist through the Overton window that is so right. What policies are popular among American? Medical for all polls at 70 % for example despite the smearing against it in corporate media. What if the media talked about Medicare for all without smearing? What if there wasn't Ben "medicare for all would make my wife a slave" Shapiros regurgating Koch brothers talking points? Medicare for all would probably poll over 90 % How about common sense gun regulation? Polls over 90 % and is popular even among NRA members! Only the leaders of NRA are against gun regulation because they take money from gun manufacturers and buy politicians. How about rise on minimum wage? Higher taxes on the wealthy? Ending the wars? Legalizing marihuana? All of these are popular among Americans. This is actually one of the big surprises for me when I started to follow American politics 2 years ago to understand why Trump won. Americans are actually quite left-leaning and often just label themselves right-wing incorrectly. The other surprise for me was how corrupted the Democrats are! Just wow! I knew the Republicans are very bad, but that (corporate) Democrats are almost as bad, only better on social issues.

Hillary Clinton is massively corrupted and have financial ties that make her very unreliable in her promises. She used to be for Medicare for all back in her husbands presidency, but today? Politicians use weasel words such as "access to doctor". Instead of emphasising clear progressive agendas, she used cliches and platitudes such as "stronger together." It was both her weak political message and her arrogance ("give me the presidency already!") that allowed Trump win. She wasn't a populist while her opponent was and that's why she lost in the era of political populism.

The slogans are popular, but the increases in government power are not.

And even the slogans are misleading.  Medicare in the US is a system in which retirees get some very basic coverage, and use private insurers to cover the rest of their needs at a government subsidized cost.  It is not a single payer system. 
Sensible gun laws means different things to different people.   The NRA is extreme in its opposition to gun regulation, but most people are far from supporting anything more than better enforcement of the laws we already have.  And so forth.

And a number of the issues you seem to think important are not important to most American voters, such as free college....

To give you a clear indication of what the center of American politics is....I am a Democrat.  A somewhat conservative one, but a Democrat.

[Todd]

Rather than memorazing numbers I am more interested in understanding how economics work. Why does more people in Oregan live under poverty line than in Finland despite of higher GDP per capita? One explanation is Finland works more as a democracy while Oregon is more oligarchic and is more rigged for the rich.

Curious, you know nothing about Oregon, yet you know all sorts of things about Oregon at the same time.

Please remember that in terms of US politics you are a hardcore leftist

No, no, he is qualified to advise political pros on electoral strategy.  He wrote it, so it is true.  Apparently, he's also got the lowdown at the state level.  And then there's this wisdom:

Americans are actually quite left-leaning and often just label themselves right-wing incorrectly.

71 dB's analysis of US politics is so accurate and potent that his name should be forwarded to James Carville today.  I'll see if I can hunt down his email address.

[amw]

This is actually one of the big surprises for me when I started to follow American politics 2 years ago to understand why Trump won. Americans are actually quite left-leaning and often just label themselves right-wing incorrectly.

I'm not sure how much following American "politics" can teach a person about why America is the way it is. At very least, the alternative perspective can be informative and useful.

[SimonNZ]

The Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association (APSA) has just ranked Trump the worst president in the history of the United States: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/experts-rank-the-best-us-presidents-of-all-time/ss-BBTnEv1?ocid=spartandhp.

I already know that the Trumpsters are going to scream that this is a liberal group.  I checked into this organization and it includes scholars from all of the major universities.  This liberal group ranked the following Republicans in the top ten: Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.  The weakest Democratic presidents were James Buchanan (my personal favorite bad president), Franklin Pierce and Jimmy Carter.  Trumpsters will have a fit when they see how they rank Obama.  I really look forward to their tantrums.

Interesting. I would have picked Andrew Johnson as worst. He has all Trump's arrogance and incompetence, plus was unelected yet felt he could shit all over the legacy of the president he stepped in for. But mainly because at a hugely crucial moment he allowed - nay, encouraged - all the aspects of racism to flourish to an extent that's still visible.

[SimonNZ]

Trump rips 'Saturday Night Live' over 'total Republican hit jobs': 'This is the real Collusion!'

"President Trump early Sunday accused major news networks of engaging in "collusion" against his administration, asking how NBC's "Saturday Night Live" could get away with "hit jobs" without "retribution."

"Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC!" Trump tweeted. "Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution?

"Likewise for many other shows? Very unfair and should be looked into. This is the real Collusion!"

[SimonNZ]

Nickname for Trump I just saw: "Needy Amin"

[JBS]

Interesting. I would have picked Andrew Johnson as worst. He has all Trump's arrogance and incompetence, plus was unelected yet felt he could shit all over the legacy of the president he stepped in for. But mainly because at a hugely crucial moment he allowed - nay, encouraged - all the aspects of racism to flourish to an extent that's still visible.

Buchanan is usually called the worst because, not only did he let the South secede, he made the South think they would succeed in seceding.
The only positive thing to say about him is that he was (probably) our first gay President (and if he was gay, probably the only one so far).

Andrew Johnson was a man elevated above his capacity, but it is fair to say that had he not been murdered,  Lincoln would have had serious conflicts with the Radical Republicans who bedeviled Johnson. He would have managed things better than Johnson, but his ideal of reconciling with the South was anathema to many in his own party.

I started the new edition of Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. In the first chapter, as part of showing where school textbooks fail,  he summarizes Wilson's racist, colonialist attitudes and points to actions by Wilson that still have negative effects a century later (segregating the federal government workforce, military intervention in Haiti, Mexico, Russia, and other places, etc). Wilson's racism among other things helped encourage the re-emergence of the KKK.

[JBS]

I'm not sure how much following American "politics" can teach a person about why America is the way it is. At very least, the alternative perspective can be informative and useful.

I dipped into a couple of sections. It is useful as a presentation of  modern doctrinaire Marxist thinking, but not for anything else.

[amw]

It provides a good overview of why a Marxist left never developed (& will never develop) in America, or other European colonies, unlike in most of the rest of the world, & therefore why American politics is tilted so far to the right economically speaking. At least if you can look past the typically overwrought Maoist prose.

[JBS]

It provides a good overview of why a Marxist left never developed (& will never develop) in America, or other European colonies, unlike in most of the rest of the world, & therefore why American politics is tilted so far to the right economically speaking. At least if you can look past the typically overwrought Maoist prose.

I bookmarked it.  Obviously a thing to be read in small doses.

[Todd]

Some good news, or at least a nice op-ed, even if the article is a bit skimpy: Trump Is Starting to Get Under Merkel's Skin

From the almost article:  "The signs are that the common democratic values that bound NATO together for much of its history may be giving way to a new era of great-power politics.  And that means life could get more uncomfortable still for the German leader."

Excellent!